Introduction

The case of Transocean Drilling UK Limited against Greenpeace UK Limited and Another ([2020] CSOH 66) presents a pivotal moment in Scottish jurisprudence concerning corporate liability for contempt of court. Transocean Drilling UK Limited ("Transocean") sought an interdict against Greenpeace UK Limited ("Greenpeace") and unidentified individuals to prevent unauthorized boarding and proximity to its offshore drilling unit, the "Paul B Lloyd Jr" ("the Rig"). Greenpeace admitted to two breaches of this interdict but contended that their actions were protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which safeguard freedoms of expression and assembly. This commentary delves into the court's comprehensive analysis, examining the interplay between corporate responsibility, legal obligations, and fundamental human rights.

Summary of the Judgment

In June 2019, Transocean obtained an interdict aimed at preventing Greenpeace from boarding or approaching their offshore drilling Rig. Contrary to this order, Greenpeace's activists boarded the Rig on June 14, 2019, and approached within the restricted 500-meter zone on June 16, 2019, both of which were admitted breaches. Greenpeace defended their actions by invoking their rights under the ECHR, arguing that their protests were peaceful and aimed at addressing the urgent issue of climate change. The Scottish Court of Session, however, held Greenpeace accountable for contempt of court, determining that the organization's planning, resources, and support rendered it answerable for the activists' actions. Consequently, the court imposed a fine of £80,000 on Greenpeace, emphasizing the necessity of upholding court orders even in the face of passionate civil disobedience.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases to underpin its reasoning:

• Beggs v The Scottish Ministers (Contempt of Court) 2005: Highlighted the necessity of proving wilful disobedience and the duty of corporate entities to ensure compliance with court orders.
• Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v Persons Unknown (2020): Distinguished between protests causing inevitable disruption and those intending to disrupt, emphasizing that deliberate obstruction does not enjoy protected status under ECHR.
• Kudrevicius v Lithuania (2016): Explored the balance between protest rights and lawful activities, reinforcing that coercive actions to impede others are not protected.
• Drieman v Norway (2000): Defined civil disobedience as acts of coercion intending to halt lawful activities, thereby not protected under ECHR freedoms.

These cases collectively reinforced the court's stance that corporate entities cannot shield themselves from contempt liability through their actions, especially when deliberate obstruction of lawful activities is involved.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed a multifaceted legal reasoning approach:

• Attribution of Conduct: It established that Greenpeace, as a corporate entity, was responsible for the activists' actions due to their comprehensive planning, support, and resources.
• Mens Rea (Intent): By admitting the breaches and providing evidence of deliberate obstruction, Greenpeace was inferred to possess the requisite intent to defy the court order.
• Contempt of Court Standard: Affirmed that contempt requires a wilful disobedience of court orders, a threshold Greenpeace met through their actions and continued defiance despite the interdict.
• Balance with ECHR Rights: Acknowledged that while Articles 10 and 11 protect freedoms of expression and assembly, these rights do not extend to actions that seek to coercively impede the lawful activities of others or disrespect court authority.

The court meticulously balanced Greenpeace's human rights claims against the imperative of maintaining judicial authority and upholding the rule of law, ultimately prioritizing the latter in this context.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent for corporate entities concerning their liability for the actions of their members or affiliates. Key potential impacts include:

• Enhanced Corporate Responsibility: Corporations must exercise greater oversight and control over their representatives to prevent breaches of court orders.
• Protest Regulation: While peaceful protests are protected, actions that intentionally obstruct or disrupt lawful activities will not be shielded by ECHR rights.
• Legal Precedent: Serves as a reference for future cases where corporate entities may be held liable for the conduct of individuals acting under their auspices.
• Balance of Rights and Law Enforcement: Reinforces the principle that fundamental human rights come with responsibilities, and their exercise cannot undermine legal processes or societal order.

Organizations engaged in activism must now navigate their activities with heightened awareness of their potential legal liabilities, ensuring compliance with court directives to avoid similar sanctions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Interdict (Injunction)

An interdict, commonly known as an injunction, is a court order that compels or restrains a party from performing specific acts. In this case, the interdict prohibited Greenpeace from boarding or approaching within 500 meters of the Rig.

Contempt of Court

Contempt of court refers to actions that disrespect the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. It can involve disobeying court orders or behaving disruptively in court proceedings. The standard for contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of wilful disobedience.

Mens Rea

Mens rea is a legal term meaning "guilty mind." It refers to the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime. For contempt, proving mens rea involves demonstrating that the breach of court orders was willful.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Articles 10 and 11

Article 10 protects the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.

Article 11 safeguards the right to freedom of assembly and association, allowing individuals to gather peacefully and form groups without undue restrictions.

While these articles provide robust protections for freedom of speech and assembly, they are subject to limitations necessary for the protection of others' rights and the maintenance of public order.

Conclusion

The judgment in Transocean Drilling UK Ltd vs. Greenpeace UK Ltd underscores the critical balance between upholding fundamental human rights and maintaining the rule of law. By holding Greenpeace accountable for contempt of court, the Scottish Court of Session emphasized that corporate entities bear responsibility for the actions of their affiliates, especially when such actions intentionally disrupt lawful operations. This case delineates the boundaries of protected protest under the ECHR, reaffirming that coercive actions aimed at obstructing others' lawful activities fall outside the scope of these freedoms. Consequently, corporations must diligently ensure compliance with legal orders, and organizations engaged in activism must conduct their protests within the confines of the law to avoid severe sanctions. This precedent serves as a crucial reference point for future litigations involving corporate accountability and the limits of civil disobedience.